The one sign of hope I see is that liberal opposition to the healthcare debacle has now coalesced. Virtually everyone on all the leftist blogs are now in agreement that it's a mess. Those who used to argue that a bad bill is better than none have disappeared. Maybe there's enough outrage that we can get the bill changed.So what does the liberal opposition expect to accomplish that can attract 60 votes? Sure, you can stop this bill from passing by a couple of liberal senators voting against it, or threatening to. And then what?
I'm full of vehement defiance too -- HolyJoe does that to me -- but I'm trying to decide whether what we can actually get passed is better than nothing. And I believe that what we progressives want will get us nothing in this congress at this time. That has to wait for another day, another election, and changing the senate rules to get rid of minority rule.
Here's what President Obama had to say, and I'm trying to decide if it is better than no bill (via HuffingtonPost):
At the White House, the president said his congressional allies were "on the precipice" of a historic accomplishment that has eluded presidents and lawmakers for generations, adding the emerging bill includes "all the criteria that I laid out" in a speech to a joint session of Congress earlier in the year."It is deficit-neutral. It bends the cost curve. It covers 30 million Americans who don't have health insurance, and it has extraordinary insurance reforms in there to make sure that we're preventing abuse," he said.
It is a very bitter pill to swallow, made all the worse by the fact that HolyJoe Lieberman is having so much fun parading his vindictive narcissistic victory.
The bottom line: if this is the best we can get in this congress at this time, does the benefit to those who will now have health insurance coverage, who can keep it if they lose their jobs or get sick, and yes those who will live rather than die -- is it worth swallowing the bitter pill?
Ralph
Your argument is fine if you accept the basic premise that this is the best we can do at this time.
ReplyDeleteI don't accept that premise. I'm with Howard Dean on this one
I think if Dems used the 51 vote reconciliation process we could pass lots of good, progressive healthcare reform. Some argue we should vote for this bill, then try to go through reconciliation for a public option. I'd go the other way. Pass the most important measures first through reconciliation, then pass general healthcare reform.
Also, Obama bends the truth curve when he claims there are 'extraordinary insurance reforms' in this bill. There simply aren't.
It absolutely saddens and pains me to say this, for a lot of people on the left he has lost credibility on this issue. Bush, too, thought he could make something true just be repeating it enough times.
richard
Richard -- you do more research than I do, so I often am no match for your informed opinions.
ReplyDeleteBut take a look at this from Nate Silver, the genius statistician and pollster who gained fame during the election:
He title his latest post: "Why Progressives Are Bat-shit Crazy to Oppose the Senate Bill." He then presents financial data to back this up on his estimate of the cost of health insurance in 2016 (for a family of four earning $54,000) between doing nothing and the current senate bill.
He figures the premium cost to the family at $13,149 if we keep the status quo and $4,000 with the current senate bill with its subsidies and cost-sharing measures.
I know you are not advocating the status quo but an even better bill. I'm saying you're likely to wind up with nothing, and this makes the senate bill look a lot better than nothing.
Go to http://www.fivethirtyeight.com
I read it. I could refute it point by point, as some have in response on his blog. His figures are way off, for starters.
ReplyDeleteLet me tell you some real figures, from real people, nto hypothetical cases.
My neighbor makes just $48,000(if he can keep his contract work), he and his wife are in good shape. He was laid off 3 years ago, has Cobra, and pays $11,520 a year. A friend of mine, working for a contractor to clean up apartments, a family of 4, earns around $45,000 and has to buy his own insurance and pays $15,500 a year. I pay 21% of my income, after taxes, in health insurance.
2016 is 7 years away. My health insurance premiums increased 25% last year, on top of 70% the year before. The 3 people I cite here pay between 21 - 34% of their income in health care. The figure cited above for the hypothetical family claims they will pay 24% 7 years from now.
I would be THRILLED if my healthcare costs only increased 3% more in 7 years. And my friend who pays 34% would be thrilled if his costs decreased by 50%.
richard
Richard -- you say Nate's figures are way off, but they are taken directly from the Congressional Budget Office estimates for 2016, including inflation.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that you know better than the nonpartisan economists and budget experts at CBO? Apparently both parties in Congress accept the CBO calculations as authoritative, even when they don't like them.
Your "real people" figures are from North Carolina, I presume, which you have told me before are way above average because the Blues have a near monopoly in your state. Nate's figure of $6,328 for a family premium in 2009 is a calculated average, not a "hypothetical" figure.
If I haven't lost track of what's in and what's out in the senate bill, such virtual monopolies in a state will be eliminated by this reform bill.
If you can get a better bill passed, I would be very happy about it. I just don't think it's going to happen this time around.
That's exactly my point. We can get a better bill passed. I don't think it's too late.
ReplyDeleteBut it would require everyone who wants serious healthcare reform to pressure their elected representatives relentlessly, and not just acquiesce to a bad bill. Change never occurs with this level of compromise. Whether it's gay rights, civil rights, women's rights - people had to fight for what they believed in. Dr. Martin Luther King never once, in his 10 year struggle, said, let's accept a watered down compromise.
richard
OK, Richard. As we came to before on Afghanistan, we've each made our points and had our say.
ReplyDeleteI've reached my saturation point of outrage fatigue, so I'm going let the argument rest here.
I fervently hope a better bill will get passed. If it does, I will gladly concede that you were right. I repeat myself: we don't disagree about the goals we want, and I'm always just a thread away from agreeing with you about tactics.